Children Must Maintain Aged Parents Even If They Receive Some Financial Support From Family/Friends: Kerala HC Explains Filial Duty
The Kerala High Court recently stated that even if aged father or mother receives financial support from friends or relatives to support themselves, it does not absolve the children of their obligation to provide maintenance.Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that filial duty is a fundamental obligation and is embedded in morality, religion and law. The Court stated that children,...
The Kerala High Court recently stated that even if aged father or mother receives financial support from friends or relatives to support themselves, it does not absolve the children of their obligation to provide maintenance.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that filial duty is a fundamental obligation and is embedded in morality, religion and law. The Court stated that children, particularly sons have a greater obligation to support their aged parents as outlined in various religious texts and codified under several laws.
Court stated, “If an age-old father or mother somehow manages to maintain themselves with the financial support of relatives or friends, that will not absolve the liability of the children to provide maintenance to them. It is both a moral duty and legal obligation of the son to provide sustenance to their parents in their old age. Filial duty is a fundamental obligation rooted in morality, religion, and law. Various religious texts, cultural traditions, and legal frameworks emphasize that children, especially sons, must look after and take care of their aged parents.”
The Court passed the above order in a writ petition filed by a petitioner, a 74 year old father who have approached the Court seeking maintenance from his children, stating that he was unable to maintain himself. The respondents are his well settled male children employed in Kuwait, born out of his first marriage.
The Petitioner divorced his first wife in 2013 by pronouncing talaq due alleging illicit relationship with his brother. The petitioner married again in 2014 and is currently living with his wife from the second marriage.
The Respondents submitted that the Petitioner is running a business abroad with his brother and is gaining income from it.
The Family Court dismissed his petition stating that he has income to maintain himself. The Family Court while rejecting the maintenance claim noted that the petitioner has contracted second marriage and without any income, he would be unable to maintain the second wife.
The Court noted that respondents were settled in Kuwait and have sufficient means to take care of their father.
The Court rejected the argument of the respondents that the petitioner's brother was transferring him money till 2018. The Court observed that the petitioner was receiving financial assistance from his brother for his day to day expenses and not as a share of any business.
The Court further stated that petitioner getting some income from others to maintain himself and his second wife cannot be a ground to deny maintenance by his children.
The Court explained that the father-son bond is the most profound one, with children having a duty to care for their parents when they become old and dependents, as parents support their children throughout their lives.
Court stated, “Just as a father once cared for his son, it is only fair that the son reciprocates when his father is old and in need. This responsibility is not only a moral and ethical obligation but also a legal duty. Society thrives when its elderly are treated with dignity and care. Neglecting an aged father not only leads to emotional distress but also weakens the very fabric of society.”
The Court further expanded on a son's duty towards his elderly parents by referencing religious texts, including Hindu Dharma, Manusmriti, the Quran, the Bible, and Buddhist teachings.
The Court stated that the obligation of son to maintain their aged parents is given under various laws. It referred to Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act to state that a son can be legally compelled to provide maintenance to his aged father. It also referred to Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act which states that a son has a duty to maintain his aged and dependent parents. The Court also referred to Section 125 (1) of CrPC/144 (d) of BNSS which pertains to maintenance for parents who are unable to support themselves.
The Court thus stated that the respondents, who are well employed and earning are legally and morally bound to maintain their 74 year old father.
As such, the Court set aside the order of the Family Court disallowing maintenance. It also ordered the respondents to pay monthly maintenance of rupees twenty thousand to their father.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, Raihanath T.H., P.Abdul Nishad, Istinaf Abdullah, Muhammed Ameen
Case Title: Uneen v Shoukathali
Case No: RPFC NO. 29 OF 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 91